At first glance the property looks to be in a good location: close to transport (tram and trains), parks, restaurants. However that goes for the hundreds of other apartments in that area. I'd be very cautious about buying brand new apartments in Melbourne if I were you. Granted, new properties offer superior depreciation benefits in the first number of years, however in the first place they are likely to be overpriced. For an agent to tell you its 'underpriced' already rings alarm bells to stay away. Why in the world would a developer knowingly sell something for less than its worth? Most of the time, everything sells for exactly what its worth based on current market conditions, or otherwise above what its worth.

$600+K is a heck of a lot of money. I strongly advise you to have a look at the prices of comparable properties in the area that have actually sold in order to gain a better understanding of whether it's worth the price or not. Frankly speaking, if you want to look at brand new stuff, I'd rather be looking at a brand-new townhouse in someplace like the inner-west, or otherwise compromise and buy something that is well located or a recently renovated small 2 bedder in places like Yarraville, Footscray…

Or you could head out East and look at the outer suburbs, picking up a solid 3-4 bedder on a massive block of land with subdivision potential for $500-550K or so and save having to borrow another $140K. I think you really need to ask yourself why you want to buy THIS particular property and why you prefer to buy an apartment over buying something 'landed', like a detached house, terrace, townhouse or villa unit. There's so many things to consider here we could write a book on it.

Actually, my answer was a 'duh' statement. Just wanted to see if anybody could pick that up.

That's right, or perhaps the forum is quiet because the property market is quiet.

Well done for starting young. I thought most university kids will be spending their savings on fancy clothes, getting a car loan or buying the next iPhone.

On the topic of LVR, beware that the bank may tolerate a lower LVR on a property in a country town as compared to a property in a large city or larger regional center. This means they may decide to loan you say, 70% of the value of the property instead of 80% which is currently the norm for property in the city (assuming no LMI).

I would suggest reading the bank documentation carefully. It's a guess that after settlement, the cheques have been exchanged and the bank has disbursed the funds to you, and in that instance you should be safe. I'm just considering the risk of you either losing your deposit if the bank does find out before settlement and refuses to finance your deal, or your dad has to come up with a couple of hundred grand cold hard cash to prevent you from losing the deal.

Consider firstly: are you dead set on having to buy a property before your next job? If so, why? Is it worth the risk? They say that good deals pop up all the time. Having a little patience could pay off in the longer run, rather than lying awake at night for days on end prior to settlement.

Good point Scott, although in this instance I am debating that the tenants actually have paid and it was the agent's office at fault for not ensuring the funds were disbursed to my account. Other than the missing rent these two weeks, I've been paid consistently every fortnight. Regardless, this is a grave concern.

Fully committed already, that's why.

Okay, I'm far from a 'seasoned investor' but the more opinions you get, the better informed you're likely to be. Besides, I'm sitting at home recovering from a bad ferret bite wound on my thumb, so I might as well write. Here's my personal opinion based on two properties.

Property 1 is based in an outer Eastern suburb of Melbourne, purchased in Aug 2009 at the height of the FHB frenzy. This was back in the day when people were willing to pay any price to knock out a competitor just for the sake of getting into the market. The house is a typical suburban late 1970's brick veneer, 3 bedroom/ 1 bathroom/ double carport on 860sqm of land. The median house price in this suburb at that time of purchase was around $385K, for an average of $396,300 by the end of 2009. The house was arguably in the 'premium' part of the suburb and was hence purchased for a little more than the median price.

The median price in the suburb of property 1 was $470K averaged for the year of 2010 and in 2011 has fluctuated between a low of $417K in July to a high of $545K in August 2011. Today there is a house for sale in the near vicinity for 'Above $415K'. This is a brick veneer, 3 bedroom/ 1 bathroom/ single carport on a subdivided block (roughly half the size of land on property 1). It is also newer inside and renovated, compared to the older style of the kitchen and bathroom in property 1.

Comments on property 1: It would be simplistic to say that the price of property 1 has increased simply because the median has done so, although this may indeed be the case. However it is also debatable as to HOW MUCH the value of property 1 has actually changed, since it is not considered a 'median-priced' property in the suburb. A judgement on its price should hence be made on properties in the near vicinity which would mean similar distance to desirable amenities. But a price comparison is not easy to construct. Even if the comparative property currently listed is sold and the sale price is known, it sits on a smaller block of land and is also renovated, unlike property 1. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions here.

Property 2 is based in a coastal regional center approximately 1 hour's drive away from Melbourne. It is serviced by highways and a train line that goes right into Melbourne CBD. Property sales are slim in this part of the regional center. The property is a 3 bedroom/ 2 bathroom/ double carport 1930's art deco weatherboard that was recently renovated and sits on 410sqm of land, approximately 66% the size of land of most neighbouring properties (townhouses excepted, although their land size is also lesser than 400sqm). It was purchased in December 2010 when the market was already considered to be weakening.

At the time of purchase, the median price for this area was $418K. The price paid was again higher than the median price for December 2010, but nowhere near the average median price for the year 2010, which was $723,750. Because there are limited sales in this area, it is difficult to analyse the monthly median price performance for the year of 2011, however it has fluctuated between a low of $365,250 in January to a high of $1,450,500 in March. The most recent median price available was for July at $455K.

Comments on property 2: To draw conclusions on the current price of this property based on median price trends would again be simplistic. Firstly, its land size is smaller than that of a number of other detached houses in its vicinity. Secondly, because this area is bayside, as you get closer to the water's edge and the parks, the houses can become exponentially more expensive, with more value added for bay views. Thirdly, the limited number of recent sales (ie. both coming on to the market and being sold as a result) in the area, making it difficult to compare prices. The price of houses for sale in the vicinity of property 2 currently range from $535K for a renovated 2 bedroom/ 1 bathroom/1 carport weatherboard on about 300sqm of land (or less) to $1,600,000 for a unrenovated 4 bedroom/2 bathroom/ 2 carport on 1250sqm of land with bay views. The 'median price' for the houses currently on sale would sit at around $700K.

In conclusion: it's not always easy to make a judgement on prices for each individual property. But a loss of 'hundreds of thousands' on these property purchases? Hardly, it seems. Perhaps the values have actually increased or remained flat? I'll let you be the judge of that.

A friend once recommended that I look in those areas, back when I was looking for a first home. I don't know much about the area, but if you see that there's still heaps of new houses coming up (and space for plenty more), beware of possible over supply in those areas. If there are many similarly new houses in the same area, your capital growth is likely to be constrained for some time.

If you are considering Lynbrook or Lyndhurst, have you considered Dandenong itself? What about Berwick? What about Springvale or Springvale South, both of which have lower vacancy rates than all the suburbs mentioned prior? When you're looking for a property to buy in a particular suburb, look into the vacancy rates of that suburb at SQMResearch. Go for suburbs with low vacancy rates at 2% or below. If there's demand in your area, it will improve the prospects of capital growth.

Do you absolutely need to buy a brand new house (and hence go for house and land packages) or would you be comfortable buying into a structurally sound 1970s brick house that has potential for improvement? It is also difficult to judge your budget simply by the amount you have saved, because we do not know how much debt you'd be comfortable to have and what you can comfortably repay. Have you consulted with a few mortgage brokers to see what their recommendations are?

A 1-bedroom UNIT, yes. A 1-bedroom APARTMENT, probably not. This is not a comparison with mining town properties because personally, I know nothing about those. However there is a very real threat of oversupply of 1-bedroom apartments in some inner city suburbs.

Haha, believe me, I don't have any more faith in the government than you do. Not here anyway.

Unfortunately as it stands right now, with multiple private companies offering pet insurance, the message ain't getting far enough, especially judging by the number of people who actually ask me if there is 'Medicare for Pets' or if insurance is available. And neither does it ensure that people microchip and register their animals in order to get the benefits that insurance provides. Microchipping and registration imposes responsibility on pet owners, which should be the norm. Pet owners should not be allowed to buy a cat for Christmas and then dump it outside to become a 'stray' after it's urinated once in their house!

One of the issues I've noted in my line of work is people acting as 'surrogates' for dozens of stray cats in the neighbourhood, not actually taking any responsibility for them but then feeding them and allowing them to produce more kittens, which a lot of councils are struggling to keep under control. It results in literally hundreds of kittens coming in to my clinic to be destroyed. Imagine if a desexed animal could be accorded more benefits for the same levy, or otherwise same benefits but a lower levy.

Once I had one client bring in a 'stray' cat that she feeds but does not own. It had a complete fracture of one of its back legs, the leg was flapping in the breeze. The cat wouldn't stand a chance against other stray cats or an oncoming vehicle. I advised her of the means to manage it. Xrays. Surgery. Minimally it should get xrays and a cast. Nope. She didn't want to spend too much money on a cat she actually didn't own. She promptly took it back home and said she'd shove it out to the streets again. If she had the equivalent of 'medicare' for this cat, she'd treat, no probs. After all she was already paying the levy, might as well take advantage of that and get the surgery done.